I don't understand, could you rephrase your answer to his question? I read his question and read your response, but don't see a connection between the two.

So, are you admitting there's no moral justification here? It's just 'do-it-because-you-want-to'?

Debate won't change the minds here. I've never seen a privacy-über-alles person arrive at social media should not exist. Maybe you have?

I'd have to wipe entire years of experience raising my kids in a world of social media. How do you propose I do that?

If you aren't interested in changing minds, why do you comment in forum threads at all?

You've seen someone about face? Please share a link to the thread. I'd love to read it.

Sorry, but that's not an answer to my question. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like you're not really talking to me, you're just responding to me.

If you're asking for evidence of people changing their minds, I've done that, though I will admit I haven't done it in the past page of comments on hackernews.

Normally it's not a wholesale change of opinion, but a shift in nuance or a changing of details.

But even if I found such a thing, that doesn't answer my question.

Respectfully, I'll believe it when I see it.

Most of my interactions in age gating discussions on HN have pushed me toward indignation, rather than nuance. It's arguing against someone's hypothetical dystopian nightmare. I'm tired of the game. If they want to affect change, they can do it financially as I am.

Looking forward to seeing this same treatment on the privacy folks and how they respond.

So why are you commenting here?

Yeah, obviously we wouldn't try to do that. Our laws, cultures, and priorities are wildly different. By this lens, the main problem seems to be that the eu expanded too much and grew too large to actually have a coherent purpose.

> eu expanded too much and grew too large to actually have a coherent purpose.

Anybody seriously thinking that seems completely oblivious to how central EU is to the economies and every day lives of member states. There is a lot to criticise about EU but without it, the Europeans lives would be much worse and their economies would be nothing to speak of. It is very sad that populists managed to popularize the image of the bloated unnecessary monster. Even otherwise intellectually capable folks.

How is "single purpose plastic wrapping" a cultural priority? Or how is an agency to collect the fees something that needs recreating?

How would you detect broken video decoding or font rendering? I don't know what those are. I don't think i've had any issues this year (Maybe i had do do some pacman-wrangling once this year, but i'm slow to update, so that was probably my fault...)), that I noticed anyway, but maybe everything's broken and i just can't tell.

That makes me, a conservative, wonder what those other headlines are talking about and if those headlines are worthwhile or helpful. Because, regardless of what you are reading, the fundamentals of government are unchanged. So if people aren't reading about them, that to me just suggests they're ignorant.

The question is, is that a reason to not engage with them, or is it a reason to engage with them? The author seems to suggest we only engage with people in our silos which seems.. incestuous?

This feels debatable to me. I wouldn't at all be upset if someone pulled the emergency stop cord in that case. Getting hundreds of dollars robbed from you on the <whatever> is a big deal.

I've never had that problem with my solar garmin watch.

What do you mean by 'removed from society'? Do you really mean you think someone should get a life sentence for stealing some cameras? Do you mean they should be executed? Something else? And then you say 'to set an example'. By that, do you mean 'they should be punished in excess of the harm they caused, to deter others from doing the same'? If so, by its very nature, that's obviously unjust and immoral.

Your reaction sounds far more third-world-country than the original act you're responding to. 'Straight to jail': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw It sounds like a desire to turn the country into an authoritarian paradise. In my opinion, such opinions are unamerican.

I mean that a person or group of people who intentionally plan and execute a campaign of crimes in order to become the new rule of law should not be tolerated. Frankly, I do not care what happens to them, but it should send a clear signal that others are unable to enforce their own rule no longer.

The idea that different random groups can enforce their own rules of law leads to anarchy and must be quenched.

When Flock camera or data center agreements are negotiated in secret with no public input, or are done over the overwhelming rejection by the public, is that not its own "new rule of law"?

I assume those agreements were done under the power that the public gave them, so no I would not consider it a new rule of law. The public delegating decision making to specific roles is a regular occurrence. If the process is creating bad results then people should change the process instead of trying to find people to "override" it.

I'm not trying to attack you but did you read the article? Because I read it and I don't know the answer to either question either.

I mean....

"He said he underwent physician-supervised ketamine therapy in late 2022 to treat depression following his mother’s death.

At a January company retreat this year at a Netflix-owned property in California, Baillie shared this experience "

...

"A company attorney acknowledged that “the ketamine therapy issue has factored into the termination.”"

I read that but assumed that wasn't why they fired him. I don't understand, why would you fire someone for receiving some kind of medical treatment?

Ignoring the obvious legal landmines, what does that have to do with the job?

I assumed there was some other reason for the firing. If that was the reason (or if that's what the victim is alleging) then I think the article needs to be more clear, it all reads like vague gossip to me and it wasn't at all clear to me that that was what this was about.

The people to whom you are responding were talking about the lack of details in this article about the Guinness "trick", not the ketamine.

How do you do t without backtracking?

If you look at the example I gave, the US Declaration of Independence, you’ll see the crossbar of the t is little transverse wiggle, so you draw the pen up to the top, then as you descend you make a brief horizontal twitch on the way down. The resulting crossbar is quite brief, almost just a bump on each side, but clear.

If you take a pen and draw this t a few times you’ll see it’s easy to draw and quite legible. I had no trouble reading the USDoI

I would not like this. This is the kind of change that made google search so annoying. (Eg what if I want to track the history of 'self-driving' vs 'auto pilot' in sales pitches? Or more basically, what if the system wrongly interprets me wrongly?) Better to support | or similar old-fashioned search engine syntax and dwis and not dwim.

Synonym functionality is good as long as there's an easy way to disable it, either globally or by wrapping the term in quotes.